IN YOUR OPINION

Letters to the Editor for Sept. 5, 2013

Published: Wednesday, September 4, 2013 at 10:42 p.m.

Last Modified: Wednesday, September 4, 2013 at 10:42 p.m.

In the mid-20th century, millions of European Jews died because Americans didn't want to get involved in a conflict overseas.

With that in mind, let's take another look at a recent statement by Rep. Ted Yoho, who opposes American intervention in Syria.

I've made just a few minor changes, to put things in perspective:

"If we use military force in (Germany), we would in fact be engaging in an act of war against a sovereign nation that does not pose a threat to the United States. While I find the death and destruction occurring in (Germany) on behalf of both the (Hitler) regime and the (Jewish) rebel forces deplorable, I must listen to the countless Americans and constituents who have pleaded with both me and my colleagues in Congress not to engage."

In the mid-20th century, America's economy was just emerging from the Great Depression. World War I was still fresh in the memories of many. A majority in Congress were proudly isolationist, unwilling to get involved in conflicts overseas.

Sound familiar?

Back then, many Americans were anti-Semitic and nobody cared if a bunch of Jews were being carted off to concentration camps. All those stories were probably Jewish propaganda anyway, right?

Today, it's a bunch of Muslims being killed, and who cares about a few thousand dead Muslims? They're all terrorists anyway, right?

Sometimes, there is a moral obligation that transcends national interests. That is what we are faced with now. If we stand by and do nothing, like Pontius Pilate, we will have innocent blood on our hands.

Frances Russell

Ocklawaha

U.S. chemical weapons

Please take the time to do a little research on the hypocritical pro stance that the Obama administration and others in Congress are taking on military action in Syria.

A simple Google search on U.S. chemical weapons in Iraq will pull up a trove of illuminating and informative sites revealing previous and recent U.S. involvement in the use of chemical weapons in the Middle East.

Thanks to documents recently released under the Freedom of Information Act, we now know that during the Reagan administration, Donald Rumsfeld was responsible for helping Saddam Hussein's regime acquire deadly chemical and biological weapons used in the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran War. During that war, the U.S. was responsible for assisting Iraq target Iranian troops, facilities and air defense sites by providing satellite intelligence assistance prior to four major offensives in early 1988, and turning a blind eye to the use of mustard gas and sarin. How duplicitous!

Even in the recent war with Iraq, U.S. forces admitted to using napalm-like bombs and white phosphorous in what was glibly termed "shake and bake" missions against insurgents.

Are we not as guilty?

Get informed now and call and/or email the White House, your congressman and your senators. Let them know that you are against another Middle East military involvement.

Laura Baldwin

Summerfield

No shows

To the uninformed writer of "United or divided," who asks why no conservatives spoke at MLK celebration then goes on to suggest none were invited, some facts:

House Speaker John A. Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the House's two most senior Republicans, were invited to speak at the 50th anniversary of the historic March on Washington, but declined.

They asked a long list of Republicans to come. Both former presidents Bush were asked, along with Sen. Tim Scott, former congressman Alen West, Dr. Benjamin Carson, and many other prominent conservatives. But all declined.

This just makes it all too obvious that their "efforts" to bring in more minority voters is a bunch of baloney.

To be seen celebrating the equality of black people and perhaps even be photographed smiling with black people around them would be the kiss of death with the Republican base. Those pictures would be front and center in the television ads of those who they would face in the next tea party primary.

Of course no Republicans showed up. Because they know, like we do, that they don't give a hoot about racial equality, or any equality for that matter. So why even subject themselves to people who can clearly see through the facade?

Let them double down on the old white people vote and get swept up into the dustbin of history.

We are talking about men and women who can go from crafting voter suppression laws designed to deny black people their right to vote, when they aren't celebrating the gutting of the Civil Rights Act, straight to claiming MLK as their own and undying support for the civil rights movement.

I hope this helps to answer this uninformed writer's question.

C.R. Quinn

Ocala

Minimum-wage worry

About a century ago, it was a good wage for a MAN to earn a dollar per day. How times have changed!

People working $7.25-per-hour jobs today are loudly demanding $15 per hour. Well, as a case in point, I am retired — early retirement due to a layoff — and collect all of $819 per month. There is no COLA in my pension. Should I live to age 93, as my father did, I'll still get $819 per month.

I'm a young 65 years old now. What will $819 buy 28 years from now? I have no crystal ball, but I can see my buying power being eroded little by little every month.

I have no animosity toward the minimum-wage folks, but can't anybody see what is going to happen to some senior citizens if this increase goes through?

<p><b>Moral obligation</b></p><p>In the mid-20th century, millions of European Jews died because Americans didn't want to get involved in a conflict overseas.</p><p>With that in mind, let's take another look at a recent statement by Rep. Ted Yoho, who opposes American intervention in Syria.</p><p>I've made just a few minor changes, to put things in perspective:</p><p>"If we use military force in (Germany), we would in fact be engaging in an act of war against a sovereign nation that does not pose a threat to the United States. While I find the death and destruction occurring in (Germany) on behalf of both the (Hitler) regime and the (Jewish) rebel forces deplorable, I must listen to the countless Americans and constituents who have pleaded with both me and my colleagues in Congress not to engage."</p><p>In the mid-20th century, America's economy was just emerging from the Great Depression. World War I was still fresh in the memories of many. A majority in Congress were proudly isolationist, unwilling to get involved in conflicts overseas.</p><p>Sound familiar?</p><p>Back then, many Americans were anti-Semitic and nobody cared if a bunch of Jews were being carted off to concentration camps. All those stories were probably Jewish propaganda anyway, right?</p><p>Today, it's a bunch of Muslims being killed, and who cares about a few thousand dead Muslims? They're all terrorists anyway, right?</p><p>Sometimes, there is a moral obligation that transcends national interests. That is what we are faced with now. If we stand by and do nothing, like Pontius Pilate, we will have innocent blood on our hands.</p><p><i>Frances Russell</p><p>Ocklawaha</i></p><p> </p><p><b>U.S. chemical weapons</b></p><p>Please take the time to do a little research on the hypocritical pro stance that the Obama administration and others in Congress are taking on military action in Syria.</p><p>A simple Google search on U.S. chemical weapons in Iraq will pull up a trove of illuminating and informative sites revealing previous and recent U.S. involvement in the use of chemical weapons in the Middle East.</p><p>Thanks to documents recently released under the Freedom of Information Act, we now know that during the Reagan administration, Donald Rumsfeld was responsible for helping Saddam Hussein's regime acquire deadly chemical and biological weapons used in the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran War. During that war, the U.S. was responsible for assisting Iraq target Iranian troops, facilities and air defense sites by providing satellite intelligence assistance prior to four major offensives in early 1988, and turning a blind eye to the use of mustard gas and sarin. How duplicitous!</p><p>Even in the recent war with Iraq, U.S. forces admitted to using napalm-like bombs and white phosphorous in what was glibly termed "shake and bake" missions against insurgents.</p><p>Are we not as guilty?</p><p>Get informed now and call and/or email the White House, your congressman and your senators. Let them know that you are against another Middle East military involvement.</p><p><i>Laura Baldwin</p><p>Summerfield</i></p><p> </p><p><b>No shows</b></p><p>To the uninformed writer of "United or divided," who asks why no conservatives spoke at MLK celebration then goes on to suggest none were invited, some facts:</p><p>House Speaker John A. Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the House's two most senior Republicans, were invited to speak at the 50th anniversary of the historic March on Washington, but declined.</p><p>They asked a long list of Republicans to come. Both former presidents Bush were asked, along with Sen. Tim Scott, former congressman Alen West, Dr. Benjamin Carson, and many other prominent conservatives. But all declined.</p><p>This just makes it all too obvious that their "efforts" to bring in more minority voters is a bunch of baloney.</p><p>To be seen celebrating the equality of black people and perhaps even be photographed smiling with black people around them would be the kiss of death with the Republican base. Those pictures would be front and center in the television ads of those who they would face in the next tea party primary.</p><p>Of course no Republicans showed up. Because they know, like we do, that they don't give a hoot about racial equality, or any equality for that matter. So why even subject themselves to people who can clearly see through the facade?</p><p>Let them double down on the old white people vote and get swept up into the dustbin of history.</p><p>We are talking about men and women who can go from crafting voter suppression laws designed to deny black people their right to vote, when they aren't celebrating the gutting of the Civil Rights Act, straight to claiming MLK as their own and undying support for the civil rights movement.</p><p>I hope this helps to answer this uninformed writer's question.</p><p><i>C.R. Quinn</p><p>Ocala</i></p><p> </p><p><b>Minimum-wage worry</b></p><p>About a century ago, it was a good wage for a MAN to earn a dollar per day. How times have changed!</p><p>People working $7.25-per-hour jobs today are loudly demanding $15 per hour. Well, as a case in point, I am retired — early retirement due to a layoff — and collect all of $819 per month. There is no COLA in my pension. Should I live to age 93, as my father did, I'll still get $819 per month.</p><p>I'm a young 65 years old now. What will $819 buy 28 years from now? I have no crystal ball, but I can see my buying power being eroded little by little every month.</p><p>I have no animosity toward the minimum-wage folks, but can't anybody see what is going to happen to some senior citizens if this increase goes through?</p><p><i>Raymond Simpson</p><p>Summerfield</i></p>